| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2012 : 10:57:43
|
Ok, one final point. Can they just end this lock out already so I can close off these bets I made "until the start of the next season."
This Leaf avatar and the Daniel Alfredsson quote should be dead already.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
 |
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2012 : 11:29:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
If you were to compare hockey to any industry, compare it to Hollywood movie stars and see how NHL players are under paid in comparison. Remember someone like Cruise or Hanks gets about $20M+ per movie plus a percentage of the gross of the movie and other royalties and they make more than one movie a year. The cast of Friends at the end was getting $1M per episode plus royalties. NBC was giving bags of gold to Seinfeld to comeback for another year when he walked away. Even the voice characters for the Simpsons at last contract got $2M each per episode plus royalties and all they do is record their voices.
In 2010, the US Movie Industry (what we'll call "hollywood") earned global revenues of roughly $95B from movies and DVD's - with TV revenues, it tops 100B a year. The top 6 studios in Hollywood generated average revenues of over 10B each. Paying Tom Cruise 20M for a picture that might generate 1B in global revenues is not a hard decision to make, and one that is easily affordable by the industry and studio.
I'm pretty sure that this is not a valid comparison - the only comparable is that both industry revenues are fed by fans. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 10/12/2012 11:30:07 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2012 : 12:00:58
|
Hey, why not compare hockey (a pro sport) to NFL, MLB, and NBA (also pro sports). All of which have either a soft cap/luxary tax system, or a hard cap without guaranteed contracts.
In all cases, including the most profitable and highest revenue league (the NFL) the revenue split is at or very close to 50-50. No where near 57-43.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Guest4233
( )
|
Posted - 10/12/2012 : 21:47:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Hey, why not compare hockey (a pro sport) to NFL, MLB, and NBA (also pro sports). All of which have either a soft cap/luxary tax system, or a hard cap without guaranteed contracts.
In all cases, including the most profitable and highest revenue league (the NFL) the revenue split is at or very close to 50-50. No where near 57-43.
I'm sure their definition of revenue is not the same as the NHL. Do you know how those leagues define revenue? Remember the whole fiasco about what is and isn't hockey related revenue and that battle. Now the NHL wants to change that definition to even a stricter (lower) value and cutting back the percentage from 57% to 43%. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2012 : 06:15:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4233
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Hey, why not compare hockey (a pro sport) to NFL, MLB, and NBA (also pro sports). All of which have either a soft cap/luxary tax system, or a hard cap without guaranteed contracts.
In all cases, including the most profitable and highest revenue league (the NFL) the revenue split is at or very close to 50-50. No where near 57-43.
I'm sure their definition of revenue is not the same as the NHL. Do you know how those leagues define revenue? Remember the whole fiasco about what is and isn't hockey related revenue and that battle. Now the NHL wants to change that definition to even a stricter (lower) value and cutting back the percentage from 57% to 43%.
This depends on perception. From what I understand, the players believe that concessions, parking, and other facility generated revenues should be part of the HRR. How does that work if the team does not own the arena? I the case of the Oilers for example, the team gets zero revenue from anything related to the facility except for ticket sales. All other at game revenues go to the building owner.
Both sides have a different opinion of HRR and I would say neither of them are anywhere near reality.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2012 : 16:11:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4233
I'm sure their definition of revenue is not the same as the NHL. Do you know how those leagues define revenue? Remember the whole fiasco about what is and isn't hockey related revenue and that battle. Now the NHL wants to change that definition to even a stricter (lower) value and cutting back the percentage from 57% to 43%.
According to wikipedia, as per the latest CBA signed in 2011, NFL revenues from almost all sources are split into one of 3 categories, and divided up this way:
- 55% of TV related revenue
- 45% of NFL ventures and properties
- 40% of local team revenues
From this number, a gross amount is obtained, divided by the number of teams, and a player cost is set. Subtract out benefits, and you have a cap. Currently the system gives the players ~48% of total league revenues, and is capped at 48.5% thru 2017.
That being said - who cares how other sports define related revenues? It is surely different for them all, because the sports and revenue machines are different . And like the NHL, that definition has surely changed for all professional sports leagues over time.
The only thing that matters is that all leagues have a) agreed to a definition of what related revenues are for their particular sport, and b) have agreed to pay their players a percentage of that revenue. Having this as a negotiating topic for the NHL CBA should not be particularly surprising, and should not be viewed as heavy handed. Its simply part of the business. |
|
|
|
Guest4233
( )
|
Posted - 10/13/2012 : 17:21:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
That being said - who cares how other sports define related revenues? It is surely different for them all, because the sports and revenue machines are different . And like the NHL, that definition has surely changed for all professional sports leagues over time.
The only thing that matters is that all leagues have a) agreed to a definition of what related revenues are for their particular sport, and b) have agreed to pay their players a percentage of that revenue. Having this as a negotiating topic for the NHL CBA should not be particularly surprising, and should not be viewed as heavy handed. Its simply part of the business.
I can't believe you just stated you don't care how revenue is calculated as long as they agree. Revenue calculation is the in essence sets the players salary. So if you restrict the definition, then the percentage to the players should be higher. so when you do a sport comparo of why can't they share 50-50 like other leagues, well, because they don't define revenue in the same way.
Let's say for example purposes that the $3.3B is divided equally to $1.1B per item you listed for the NFL definition. If the new NHL definition is only 2 of the 3 items, and the split is 50-50, then the players take a total of a 41.5% pay cut with only a 7% reduction in revenue split reduction (57 to 50). |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2012 : 21:13:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4233
I can't believe you just stated you don't care how revenue is calculated as long as they agree. Revenue calculation is the in essence sets the players salary. So if you restrict the definition, then the percentage to the players should be higher. so when you do a sport comparo of why can't they share 50-50 like other leagues, well, because they don't define revenue in the same way.
Let's say for example purposes that the $3.3B is divided equally to $1.1B per item you listed for the NFL definition. If the new NHL definition is only 2 of the 3 items, and the split is 50-50, then the players take a total of a 41.5% pay cut with only a 7% reduction in revenue split reduction (57 to 50).
I understand that revenue calculation is the essence of everything in a revenue sharing agreement, and it will be of interest from an academic and overall agreement point of view. But as long as both sides agree to how it is shared, why do we necessarily care what goes into HRR and what does not?
Unless you are an owner or a player, you really have no vested interest in what the makeup of HRR is or how it is calculated. I personally don't care if its the same as the NFL, or includes the same components as the NFL, or is completely different from all other professional sports. I trust that the sides that do have a vested interest will devote a great deal of time to hammering out a common ground that provides benefits to both sides. So long as both players and owners agree to how it is calculated - thus paving the way for a new CBA and hockey - I'm good.
|
Edited by - nuxfan on 10/13/2012 21:18:37 |
|
|
|
2ForInstigating
Top Prospect
13 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2012 : 18:26:05
|
May have already been said, but
Who gives a rats about what is fair/valid points.
These clowns are not saving the world. What ever happened to 'The Love Of The Game'? If you're making enough to live comforatbly, what do you have to cry about?
And how the hell much does an owner have to make, to feel its a valuable investment? I'm pretty sure to own a hockey team, minimum wage is not a phrase you are familiar with....
suck it up, princesses of both sides, and get back to the game...
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2012 : 11:13:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by 2ForInstigating
May have already been said, but
Who gives a rats about what is fair/valid points.
These clowns are not saving the world. What ever happened to 'The Love Of The Game'? If you're making enough to live comforatbly, what do you have to cry about?
And how the hell much does an owner have to make, to feel its a valuable investment? I'm pretty sure to own a hockey team, minimum wage is not a phrase you are familiar with....
suck it up, princesses of both sides, and get back to the game...
How much would you have to make as an owner to consider it a valuable investment?
Depends on what franchise you own, I guess.
If it's a franchise like New Jersey, you are happy if you make a million. If you are a franchise like Tampa Bay or Florida, you are happy to make a dollar. That is, one american dollar ($1) on a multi-million dollar investment.
I tell you what dude - I will tell you from my viewpoint, as an amateur investor myself. What I look for from my investments at the VERY LEAST is to keep up with inflation - not the pretend rate that gov't agencies put out, but the real inflation rate (usually close to double what the official figure is, seeing as how they never take into account "inflationary data" - makes sense, eh?).
So for argument's sake, at this point, if my investments from 2010 onward aren't making at bare minimum 3% . . . I would feel like I am actually losing money. What I actually look for, if making a very large investment, is a solid return on a "safe" investment (typically, the more guaranteed the return, the smaller it is). So, a modest couple of percent would do.
So, to make a modest 5% investment, that means for the average team of 228 million (see this 2010 figure: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/hockey-valuations-10_land.html) that I should expect a yearly return of . . . 11.4 million a year.
Now, this is difficult to gage sometimes, but you get my drift.
We DO KNOW that well over half of all franchises are not making anything close to that, right? I could tell you as well, that with that kind of money (which is a huge amount, and which can give you a 6 or 7% guaranteed return at any bank for that kind of money - and that is 100% guaranteed!) I could be making 15 or 20% return easily . . . in real estate, metals, oil, etc. But then, I think I've made my point?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
OILINONTARIO
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
816 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2012 : 12:01:37
|
Why is it then that about half the owners of NHL teams return every year, knowing full well that they are taking a huge bath? Tax writeoff? I don't really know enough about economics to know for sure, but I have heard that it may be one impetus.
Also, judging by the comments from various late-night comedians, owning an NHL team is a status symbol, tantamount to driving a stretch Hummer with diamond-studded rims. A pet project, if you will.
Without contraction, this league will remain in labour dispute, simply because it cannot support 30 profitable teams in North America.
I have heard the line, also, that Bettman has a horribly difficult job, because he has 30 bosses, but haven't really heard too much press from said bosses. A lot of opinion from the members of the players union, but not so much from the ones who are apparently trying to pull the tug-of-war in their favour.
I think most would agree that, as 24Instigating said, neither side is all too hard done by. There may be a bias to side with the owners, because we all know that in the end they will get their way.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2013. |
Edited by - OILINONTARIO on 10/16/2012 09:55:32 |
|
|
|
Guest9888
( )
|
Posted - 10/15/2012 : 18:53:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
There may be a bias to side with the owners, because we all know that in the end they will get their way.
Get their way. F-it up. Hold the players accountable for F-ing things up. Force the players to take a pay cut when renegotiating the CBA. Then lock out when the players won't budge....
Rinse and repeat every 7-10 years or so. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2012 : 11:26:39
|
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/hockey/vancouver-canucks/offers+players+revenue+split+spirit/7397865/story.html
Here a link to the new owners proposal. 50/50 split with no rollback on a 6 year term. The proposal would have hockey Nov 2nd and a full 82 game season. No lost income for either side. Of course the details are skitchy. I dont know if arbitration or guaranteed contracts was discussed. Fehr and company said it was an improvement in areas and other not as much. I am hoping for a quick agreement and to get hockey talk back on the ice. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2012 : 11:57:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/hockey/vancouver-canucks/offers+players+revenue+split+spirit/7397865/story.html
Here a link to the new owners proposal. 50/50 split with no rollback on a 6 year term. The proposal would have hockey Nov 2nd and a full 82 game season. No lost income for either side. Of course the details are skitchy. I dont know if arbitration or guaranteed contracts was discussed. Fehr and company said it was an improvement in areas and other not as much. I am hoping for a quick agreement and to get hockey talk back on the ice.
This is a pretty significant move by the NHL, and seems to be a good "middle ground" from their original lowball offer and where we are now.
- 50/50 split (no word on what HRR will be defined as, if it changes at all)
- UFA after age 28 or 8 years service (up from current 6)
- EL deals 4 years long (up from current 3)
- contract length capped at 5 years (a significant change from now)
- arbitration continues to exist
- revenue sharing at 200M.
While contracts won't be rolled back, you can be sure that there will be a cut to take home pay, in the form of increased escrow amounts, if they go to 50/50. There is also no mention of closing the loophole around cap circumvention with bonuses or unbalanced yearly amounts.
Still, it does seem to be a promising offer, esp given that public opinion seems to like the idea of a 50/50 split. Lets see what the players say. To start on Nov 2 (training camp to start next Thursday), they'd have to have this agreed to pretty quickly. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 10/16/2012 11:58:08 |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2012 : 18:30:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/hockey/vancouver-canucks/offers+players+revenue+split+spirit/7397865/story.html
Here a link to the new owners proposal. 50/50 split with no rollback on a 6 year term. The proposal would have hockey Nov 2nd and a full 82 game season. No lost income for either side. Of course the details are skitchy. I dont know if arbitration or guaranteed contracts was discussed. Fehr and company said it was an improvement in areas and other not as much. I am hoping for a quick agreement and to get hockey talk back on the ice.
This is a pretty significant move by the NHL, and seems to be a good "middle ground" from their original lowball offer and where we are now.
- 50/50 split (no word on what HRR will be defined as, if it changes at all)
- UFA after age 28 or 8 years service (up from current 6)
- EL deals 4 years long (up from current 3)
- contract length capped at 5 years (a significant change from now)
- arbitration continues to exist
- revenue sharing at 200M.
While contracts won't be rolled back, you can be sure that there will be a cut to take home pay, in the form of increased escrow amounts, if they go to 50/50. There is also no mention of closing the loophole around cap circumvention with bonuses or unbalanced yearly amounts.
Still, it does seem to be a promising offer, esp given that public opinion seems to like the idea of a 50/50 split. Lets see what the players say. To start on Nov 2 (training camp to start next Thursday), they'd have to have this agreed to pretty quickly.
the 5 year cap does a lot to limit what a team can do with bonus' and front loaded contracts though....
Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2012 : 06:17:02
|
Huge, significant move. Great news for fans, but let's face it - it was NOT done for us. This is as a result of economic (financial) pressures (ie - marginal franchises hurt badly/in danger of folding, etc).
The 50/50 split is significant, but only if the HRR is somewhere between what the League and the NHLPA were in terms of defining it.
The Cap on contract length is the most significant thing here . . . and the entry level deals moving from 3 to 5 is also significant - especially for "smaller market/non-traditional market" teams like Edmonton, getting a raft of high draft picks and being able to actually keep their stars for an eventual competetive run at the cup. In the past, this has been very difficult to do for the most part, outside of having a single franchise player like a Kovalchuk, Crosby or Ovechkin.
I don't see the NHLPA accepting a 5 year max on all contracts . . . it is not going to happen. I think the league is hoping for 6, but will probably settle for 7 years as the max.
No salary arbitration . . . now that I think about it, THIS is really huge, actually. And I sort of agree with it - it's one of the big reasons salaries got inflated in the first place (after instituting a cap system). Good call, hopefully the players go for it - not likely though!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2012 : 08:29:16
|
I follow Bob MacKenzie on twitter and the CBA does but in some pretty cools things for these long-term, back diving contracts. I am paraphrasing and may not have all the details nailed down however:
1 - 5 yr contract max with the largest sway year to year being 5%. Meaning a $10 million/yr contract can not drop by more than $500,000 each year. This would take away all those Weber, Luogno, Kovalchuk type deals.
2 - The current back diving contracts would punish the original club who signed the deal in that the club would still have a cap hit of the average of the contract if the player retires until the end of the contract. Furthermore, if the original club trades the player and then they retire, the original club STILL takes the cap hit.
The NHL is punishing themselves in this as well. I personally like it.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2012 : 08:31:08
|
So, here is an intersting point I thought about yesterday when Bizznasty was making the players look stupid on OTR.
If the players are the product and everything to the NHL, what is stopping them from putting their own money up and starting their own league?? I mean, why should the superstar players be giving any of the revenues they create to an owner???
Answer yourself that question and then think of what side of the coin should win the fight. Kid yourself all you want but the players need the owners far more than the owners need the players.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2012 : 09:29:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
So, here is an intersting point I thought about yesterday when Bizznasty was making the players look stupid on OTR.
If the players are the product and everything to the NHL, what is stopping them from putting their own money up and starting their own league?? I mean, why should the superstar players be giving any of the revenues they create to an owner???
Answer yourself that question and then think of what side of the coin should win the fight. Kid yourself all you want but the players need the owners far more than the owners need the players.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
I recall back in 2005, when the season was lost, the players started talking about doing just that. Or, trying to find another bunch of owners to setup a new league. I think they realized just how hard and expensive it could be.
Mario Lemieux would be an interesting person to interview in all fo this - as a former player that became an owner, he is in a unique situation as having been on both sides of the equation. I don't think owning the Pens is nearly as easy as it was to play for them. |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 10/17/2012 : 09:33:32
|
I agree Beans. Someone should ask Mario Lemieux which side (being a player or owner) is better? Lemieux would never go on record to comment about the current lockout, because owners or GM's who were former players usually do not disparage players. (And because of the NHL's gag order on team owners.)
Lemieux made well over $50 million in his shortened NHL career, and I suspect he has not made near the same amount as the principal owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins. (To be fair though, it's possible his net worth has improved by his equity share in the team.)
But ask Mario Lemieux how easy it would be for the players to start their own league. And ask Mario Lemieux which "job" is more of a job. Playing hockey (for which players deserve to be well paid) or owning/running a hockey team.
I suspect that Lemieux was in his element as a player, and while I'm sure he enjoys owning a hockey team, I'm sure he has fonder memories of his playing career. And I'm pretty sure Lemieux would comment (if he were allowed to do so) that the players have it pretty good, and the owners are not being unreasonable to want a 50/50 split of revenues.
Revenues for which the teams still have huge expenses to pay (which has been pointed out many times before), and for the players, their 50% for them to keep.
But now that the NHL has offered a 50/50 split on hockey-related revenues (HRR), I think the NHLPA is likely to accept this split. (Or come back asking for the split to be eased in over the next fee seasons, taking the players' current 57% down to 50% by year two or three.) And I speculate that the remaining negotiating points will include determining a common understanding of HRR, and details like entry-level contract rules/length, caps on contract length, etc.
There's still some distance between the two sides, but the NHL has narrowed this distance with their latest offer. The devil is in the details though, and I'm sure we will soon hear about these details from the NHLPA in the next few days, and after they've completely reviewed the NHL's proposal.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2012 : 11:03:44
|
I'm not sure if anyone else read this story on TSN but my homie Bobby Mac has reported about a letter to the players from the NHLPA. It's easy to see things clearly from a far when you don't know all the details, but this message tells me the NHLPA is not at all pleased with the latest offer and the players are taking the harder line.
There is a post on this TSN story that I completely agree with and that is if and when the players flat out decline this proposal, it's going to be hard to see how the public perception will not be fully on the owners side. 50-50 is in line with virtually every other pro league, the financial breakdown makes sense, and this is about a good as the players can and should expect.
Is it possible that Donald Fehr is an more negative influence to the NHL that Gary Bettman is????
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2012 : 11:19:19
|
Here is another interesting read from TSN. These are the highlights from the NHL's proposal. There are some key punitive items specifically around the Cap Accounting:
As I previously stated, a player with a contract of great than 5 yrs will still be paid and the cap hit will stay valid for the length of the player's contract. If the player is traded, that cap hit goes with the player to his new team. However, if that player retired before the term of the contract expires, the original team gets the cap hit back until the end of the contract.
For example, if Luongo gets traded to Toronto, his cap hit goes with him. But, if Luongo retires in 2 years, Vancouver gets his average annual cap hit back.
That is awesome.
The other key points I read is that if a player is buried in the minors or in a league in Europe, his average annual contract above $105,000 remains as a cap hit to the club. Sorry NYR, you are still getting Wade Redden's cap hit!
Finally, without getting into the specific details, team can retain a certain amount of a cap hit of a player after a trade. Call that the Brian Burke clause as he has been chirping that since he had to drop Bryzgalov as a Duck. That would encourge trades for players with overpriced contracts if the original team would keep some of the salary. That actually means a player like Shawn Horcoff might get traded!!!
If you made it to the bottom of this post, what all this means is it looks like the NHL is installing systems in the CBA to ensure the owners are being managed and not able to circumvent the CBA without consequence.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2012 : 13:16:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Is it possible that Donald Fehr is an more negative influence to the NHL that Gary Bettman is????
This was one of the first insights into the offer - simply, how can the players say no to a 50/50 split, and still look good? There were lots of kudos to Bettman yesterday for playing it the way he did - no warning, a (seemingly to us anyway) fair offer to get the season going soon. Now its the owners that want to play hockey, and the players are greedy bastards!
Unfortunatly, I understand Fehr's stance and response - what can he do? The "fair offer" is still a supersized cut to what the players have now, and accepting this offer will amount to another CBA where the players bent over and gave back - even if they're giving back from a very lucrative and advantaged position.
Fehr has to reject this deal, and it will be interesting to see what the counter is. In some excerpts from Fehr's letter to the players:
quote:
- "We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road. The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."
- "Bear in mind the approach that the Players have taken to these negotiations. It is:
- Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive.
- Players are willing to take reduced share going forward so that the NHL can grow out of whatever problems some franchises face.
- The player contracting rights secured in the last negotiations should be, at minimum, maintained.
- Revenue sharing needs to be enhanced and structured so as to encourage revenue growth by the receiving teams.
- The overall agreement has to be fair and equitable for both parties. Bargaining is both give and take."
What I read from that is:
- no way the players will take less than 57%
- player contract rights should be maintained (so no 5 year max, no cap circumvention rules, no changes to EL deals)
|
Edited by - nuxfan on 10/17/2012 13:17:53 |
|
|
|
mandree888
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
400 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2012 : 13:51:51
|
they way i sees it. If the PA turn this down i dont see hockey being played this year. this is just a gut feeling dont rip me apart for it ROFL! |
Edited by - mandree888 on 10/17/2012 13:52:37 |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2012 : 09:17:07
|
Is it possible that by Gary Bettman making the NHLs full offer public that the NHL could be considered to be "bargaining in bad faith" which is illegal in the world of labour law.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2012 : 09:50:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Is it possible that by Gary Bettman making the NHLs full offer public that the NHL could be considered to be "bargaining in bad faith" which is illegal in the world of labour law.
Umm, no. Not in the least. This happens all the time in negotiations. One side make the proposal and then pushes it public. It would be different if the NHL make released the information to the public before presenting it to the NHLPA but that is not the case.
I am not sure about the laws in other provinces, but using the rules of God's Country (Alberta that is), bad faith bargining is defined as refusing to meet once bargining notice is served, missing procedural steps, refusing to attend further meetings, and attending meetings unprepared. There are others but these are the main 4.
Also, that is the NHL's information to share is it not?? The NHLPA does not own any of it. It's not like the NHL is speaking on behalf of the PA in any way.
Let's seriously think about this for a second. Do your think an organization with $3.3 billion in revenues does not have a football team worth of lawyers working the background on this??? C'mon. Bargining in bad faith???
Weak Chop. Super weak. I expect more from a smart dude like yourself.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2012 : 09:56:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Is it possible that by Gary Bettman making the NHLs full offer public that the NHL could be considered to be "bargaining in bad faith" which is illegal in the world of labour law.
As beans said, it is not illegal in any way. It might be considered "bad faith" if both sides agreed to not negotiate in the public, but these negotiations have been in the public from the get-go. So fair game.
According to an article I read, Bettman decided to release the full offer only after the NHLPA started to selectively respond to the offer in public. Rather than have snippets come out and get twisted by the NHLPA, the NHL simply released the offer so everyone had context to rebuttals. Nothing wrong with that. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2012 : 10:29:50
|
Bettman is once again showing people why you don't taunt the Count into going public.
Fehr made a statement early on saying "the negotiations should be televised". ha ha, good stuff that
The NHLPA, after receiving the League's offer, began leaking little bits of it to the press and contacts . . . but only selected bits. So the league publicly put it out there.
The players had already lost the battle in the public eye, but probably only by a very slim margin. Now, get set for a big fat PR nightmare for the NHLPA . . . because Fehr is damned if he makes all those concessions, and damned if he doesn't. Not a good place to put yourself in.
Looks like the PR firm the league hired gave them good advice, reading the tea leaves.
And from my point of view?
I like to know what the real deal is, so yeah - thanks league!
If the players don't make big concessions soon to get at least a large portion of the season in . . . I am going to be pissed at the players bigtime.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2012 : 11:27:25
|
A little snippet directly from a Negotiations and Bargaining manual.
"One form of bad faith bargaining involves a technique whereby the employer submits a package of bargaining positions to the union which it holds fast as a "fair and firm offer". A requisite element in this technique, which has become known as "Boulwarism" is a massive public relations campaign, portraying the employer as the "true defender" of employee interests".
And Beans there are lot bigger companies out there that have a lot more lawyers and they still try to do silly things like bad faith bargaining. It would be foolish to believe they would not.
I am not saying this is but I just thought it is great topic for the forum. I saw it mentioned on the live chat in the Star today where the author said he talked to a local labor leader who said it may be a form of bad faith bargaining. |
|
|
|
Guest6535
( )
|
Posted - 10/18/2012 : 12:00:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Bettman is once again showing people why you don't taunt the Count into going public.
Fehr made a statement early on saying "the negotiations should be televised". ha ha, good stuff that
The NHLPA, after receiving the League's offer, began leaking little bits of it to the press and contacts . . . but only selected bits. So the league publicly put it out there.
The players had already lost the battle in the public eye, but probably only by a very slim margin. Now, get set for a big fat PR nightmare for the NHLPA . . . because Fehr is damned if he makes all those concessions, and damned if he doesn't. Not a good place to put yourself in.
Looks like the PR firm the league hired gave them good advice, reading the tea leaves.
And from my point of view?
I like to know what the real deal is, so yeah - thanks league!
If the players don't make big concessions soon to get at least a large portion of the season in . . . I am going to be pissed at the players bigtime.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Eliott Freidman said of TSN 690 and i quote `a drunk sailor would not be dumb enough to sign the NHL`s new offer` |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2012 : 13:26:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
A little snippet directly from a Negotiations and Bargaining manual.
"One form of bad faith bargaining involves a technique whereby the employer submits a package of bargaining positions to the union which it holds fast as a "fair and firm offer". A requisite element in this technique, which has become known as "Boulwarism" is a massive public relations campaign, portraying the employer as the "true defender" of employee interests".
And Beans there are lot bigger companies out there that have a lot more lawyers and they still try to do silly things like bad faith bargaining. It would be foolish to believe they would not.
I am not saying this is but I just thought it is great topic for the forum. I saw it mentioned on the live chat in the Star today where the author said he talked to a local labor leader who said it may be a form of bad faith bargaining.
Fair enough Chop, but I don't think this fits the mold. In no way in the NHL saying, 'take this or else." Also, I don't see the NHL saying they are the true defenders of the employee. In fact, that are saying the exact opposite. In their commnets they have said they are there to defend the owners and the players be damned.
Nope, as Nux and Slozo both pointed out, this reaction by Bettman was based on the NHLPA throwing snipets of responses to the media and trying to paint the picture differently than presented. All Bettman did was to release the information completely and let everyone form their own opinion.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2012 : 14:34:57
|
Good News. At least we can all agree we clearly have a 50/50 league revenue split and we can stop hearing the bitchy HRR battle. HRR unchanged and the 50/50 yes. The changes to the minor league players with NHL contracts and current contract lengths salary designation are tricky at best. But aren't they restrictive to teams, more so than players. I dont see them as huge player obsticles. Contract length, rookie contract rights and arbitration being the biggest challenges.
I honestly dont understand the differences in Arbitration rights. It states both parties have to agree. Is this not the current way it is conducted. What happens when one party refuses arbitration. Does the contract become invalid. I would have like to see a better explaination of who and how the contract value moving with the player, but returning to the signing team if a player retires. Whats to stop a player like Loungo from retiring from the NHL and signing in the KHL just to screw with the Canucks. I like the Minor league changes with regards to Redden, awesome, however, I would have rather seen some form of a buyout of the guarantee at 50% with a term of payback spread over twice the length. That way an underperforming player loses 50% salary and has to wait twice as long to receive it. I would apply the same math to a retired players salary should he choose to sign and retire before the end of the contract.
I see why Fehr and party have their hands full on how to respond to the NHL's proposal. I hope pride doesnt get in the way of a good counteroffer. Simple tweaks and this is a workable deal. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2012 : 17:43:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
I see why Fehr and party have their hands full on how to respond to the NHL's proposal. I hope pride doesnt get in the way of a good counteroffer. Simple tweaks and this is a workable deal.
"NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said following the meeting that none of the offers "even began to approach 50-50" and said he's concerned that it's a step back."
""It's clear we're not speaking the same language," said Bettman. "I am concerned we are not progressing."
""I don't know what the next step is," added Bettman. "I'm obviously very discouraged.""
These comments do not seem to indicate that any of the counteroffers were good. |
|
|
|
Guest4377
( )
|
Posted - 10/18/2012 : 19:16:19
|
To those who criticize the players, or those who criticize the owners, I agree with Don Cherry's comments. He said that you're lying if you wouldn't do the same if you were in their position.
And to add to Cherry's comments, it's the players and owners (for the most part) who have the most to gain (or lose). Yes, it's too bad for the fans (most who will come back, like they did after the last lockout), and it's too bad for the non-playing personnel of the hockey clubs and the peripheral businesses, but the owners have every right to try to get the best deal they can, and the players have the same right.
If the owners are wrong (and stubborn), and you choose to blame them for a missed hockey season, make your vote with your wallet and your support. And same with the players. If you blame them (or their union) for being greedy, you have the option of taking your entertainment dollar elsewhere.
The owners know this, and the NHLPA knows this, but they also know that hockey fans, for the most part, will come back. I know it's frustrating to hockey fans, but the owners (as represented by Bettman) or players are not really worried about losing fan support by a prolonged lockout (or missed season).
While hockey fans should be considered as stakeholders, the reality is we're not. A real stakeholder would be part of the negotiations. And while the NHL and NHLPA want to win the public relations battle, and look righteous to the fans, it's secondary (at the most) to getting the biggest piece of the pie possible.
Getting back to Don Cherry's comments, I would like to think that if I were a player or owner that I would consider myself "lucky," and compromise on my own take for the sake of the fans and the game. But maybe I'm kidding myself? |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2012 : 04:37:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4377
To those who criticize the players, or those who criticize the owners, I agree with Don Cherry's comments. He said that you're lying if you wouldn't do the same if you were in their position.
And to add to Cherry's comments, it's the players and owners (for the most part) who have the most to gain (or lose). Yes, it's too bad for the fans (most who will come back, like they did after the last lockout), and it's too bad for the non-playing personnel of the hockey clubs and the peripheral businesses, but the owners have every right to try to get the best deal they can, and the players have the same right.
If the owners are wrong (and stubborn), and you choose to blame them for a missed hockey season, make your vote with your wallet and your support. And same with the players. If you blame them (or their union) for being greedy, you have the option of taking your entertainment dollar elsewhere.
The owners know this, and the NHLPA knows this, but they also know that hockey fans, for the most part, will come back. I know it's frustrating to hockey fans, but the owners (as represented by Bettman) or players are not really worried about losing fan support by a prolonged lockout (or missed season).
While hockey fans should be considered as stakeholders, the reality is we're not. A real stakeholder would be part of the negotiations. And while the NHL and NHLPA want to win the public relations battle, and look righteous to the fans, it's secondary (at the most) to getting the biggest piece of the pie possible.
Getting back to Don Cherry's comments, I would like to think that if I were a player or owner that I would consider myself "lucky," and compromise on my own take for the sake of the fans and the game. But maybe I'm kidding myself?
Well,
Cherry doesn't know jack sh*t about me then.
If I was a player, I would be forced to be silent, but would be violently opposed to not making decently large concessions in order to get the season rolling on time. Seriously.
As a player, even when looking at it from a very selfish point of view . . . it is 100% a loss for me to have a half year or year taken away from my career and development, a net loss of pay. That's for starters.
On top of that, is the fact that, although if I hold out for super long and get exactly what I want (say, a year) for the revenue sharing and contract length . . . that revenue I might get in a slight trickle down effect is going to be even less, despite the percentage remaining relatively unchanged. You know why? Because the net effect of a long lockout is totally apathy, loss of ticket/gate revenue, and a huge loss of merchandising revenue.
So what, pray tell, is the point?
The point is, the players are not that smart. Not one is any kind of a financial wizard, sorry to break it to you guys. They have just been hoodwonked by yet another labour leader trying to "fight for the rights" of grossly overpaid millionaires.
And if I was a player, I would recognise the gross-ness of it all, and would want zero part of it.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2012 : 07:21:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
["NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said following the meeting that none of the offers "even began to approach 50-50" and said he's concerned that it's a step back."
""It's clear we're not speaking the same language," said Bettman. "I am concerned we are not progressing."
""I don't know what the next step is," added Bettman. "I'm obviously very discouraged.""
These comments do not seem to indicate that any of the counteroffers were good.
Funny thing is, in the NHLPA news conference they said one of their proposals has a 50/50 provided the owners honor the contracts that they were signing right up until the lockout.
The NHL is offering a 50/50 with a "make whole" clause that would work very similiar to an escrow where the players money with pay the players down the road.
Its odd to me that both sides could not find a way to work on that aspect if it is both sides offers. There is a battle of stubborness here. The PA is out to prove they are once again solid after being almost ruined last time. |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 10/19/2012 : 08:54:42
|
Eighteen players joined the NHLPA executive at yesterday's press conference. These players included Dan Cleary, Sidney Crosby, Shane Doan, Robyn Regehr, Kevin Westgart, and Dan Winnik.
Interesting make up of players, from pluggers to superstars, some early in their hockey-playing careers, some in the twilight of their careers.
For the most part, this is good. It shows the players to be united, and from all standpoints.
I wonder if the players are so united behind the scenes? Do most players (except superstars) care about the "make whole" clause which may affect players who signed lucrative long-term deals before the lock-out?
A guy like Kevin Westgart is not likely going to ever sign a long-term, so accept for the fact he may appreciate the league superstars, does he really care about a cap on the length of contracts?
And how about guys like Jarome Iginla or Dan Cleary? How many seasons do they have left? They just can't tag on an extra year (if they miss a year), and get the lost money back. Nor can any player.
But Cleary and Iginla have made their millions from the game, so maybe they see it as giving back to the next generation of hockey players?
If you take away the top half of the players in the NHL, the remaining roughly 300 players may only play 3-4 years (or less) in the NHL, so their stakes are different than the top half of players. (Especially the top 100 players.)
I suppose it's like the NHL owners. For the top 3-4 teams, they're making gobs of money with the current "deal," so they probably wish a deal was done by now. But for the money-losing teams, they are fine to lose a season to get the deal they want.
With two sides having a wide range of participants (owners on one side, and players on the other side), it comes down to what takes place behind the scenes. I still think the players will "blink" first, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the players are not as united as they appear to be.
How united is a union, when you have well over a hundred members in Europe playing hockey, who are essentially taking jobs from other hockey players. For the players not playing overseas, I wonder how they feel about this? And not their public position, but their behind-the-scenes opinion.
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2012 : 08:56:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Funny thing is, in the NHLPA news conference they said one of their proposals has a 50/50 provided the owners honor the contracts that they were signing right up until the lockout.
The NHL is offering a 50/50 with a "make whole" clause that would work very similiar to an escrow where the players money with pay the players down the road.
Its odd to me that both sides could not find a way to work on that aspect if it is both sides offers. There is a battle of stubborness here. The PA is out to prove they are once again solid after being almost ruined last time.
Unfortunately we don't know the details of the players offers, but I too read that one offered 50/50 so long as all contracts were fully honoured. I honestly don't know how that could be achievable - contracts have been signed assuming a salary cap of 70M, but a 50/50 split in revenues would drop the cap down to 55M or so - there would be a lot of teams that would be screwed for a decade or more, unless there were some way to pay out these contracts without counting against a new cap.
The devil is probably in the details, I'd be interested to see how that could happen myself. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2012 : 13:36:23
|
I think it was a recent tweet from Bob MacKenzie that said it best. I might be missing the exact wording but it was essentially:
"Unless the players shift from standing by principles and become pragmatic, this deal is not going to happen"
The players are not viewing the world in a realistic view. The simple fact of the matter is that 80% of the NHL teams are pulling in less than $90 million in revenue. Even at a 50/50 revenue split of the $3.3 billion revenues, the average cap for a team is going to be $55 million. That means that all but 6 teams in the NHL will be paying our over 60% of their individual revenues to the players at a 50/50 split.
The NHL without the Leafs, Rangers, Canucks, Red Wings, Bruins, and Canadiens would have to shut the doors. If the players are plain stupid they things it's smart to rest the success of the entire league on the ability of those 6 teams to continue to double and triple the average revenue streams.
All this while the average NHLer is making over $2 million per season, guaranteed. Donald Fehr has been able to have a more negative impact on the NHL in a year that Gary Bettman has been able to do in 20 yrs.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2012 : 13:40:35
|
AS far as I am concerned the players are right in not accepting the NHL`s offer, they re Make Whole clause is a joke, the players are esentially paying themselves back for contracts the owners offerd.
The NHL has to understand their is no roll back there is no way to save the money they have already promised to players unless they all want to declare bankruptcy. The details were not released of the NHLPA`s third offer but it sounds pretty fair to me. The NHL gets their 50 50 split but must honor all contracts they have offerd. A contract is a contract period they owe the players the money they promised it is that simple if they can`t pay, trade the contract to someone who can or go bankrupt it really is that simple.
we all know if anyone of us signed a contract to say, buy a house, none of us could turn around when it came time make payment and say well i want to roll back the amount because the economy is down and i`m not makeing any money. The only way out of a contract is bankruptcy.
Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2012 CBA News and Comments 
